The Cause of War Possible Solutions - Essay Example

The Cause of War: Possible Solutions Mankind has grown accustomed to the inevitability of war. This acceptance of the cause and characterization of war has also assured its perpetual nature. World War II was a global war that drew in participants for humanitarian and idealistic reasons. It was international in scope and created cooperation that clearly defined the sides. More modern warfare has been waged as country against country, or as a country against its own people. The last 60 years have seen the US engaged in the Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, War on Terrorism, and the Iraq War. These wars are best analyzed from the perspective of the state. Though individuals may serve as a catalyst to precipitate violence, they are initiated within the bureaucratic structures and institutionalized ideologies of the state. The Cold War was fought over the institutionalized ideology of capitalism against the Soviet's communistic philosophies. These were state mandates that defined the economic system and the resulting views on justice and equality. The states of the US and the USSR were taking the steps necessary to protect their interest and expand their political influence around the globe. The Cold War was driven by state policies such as the policy of containment and the Military-Industrial complex. Without these state policies, the Cold War could not have escalated. Yet, it was waged for 40 years without regards to the president or the political party in power. It was driven by defense policies and the need to escalate defense spending to spur the development of new technologies. The Korean War and the Vietnam war were spin-offs of the Cold War and were also rooted in the same war of ideologies. The US system of capitalism and the accompanying freedoms were the justification for taking on communism in these third world countries. Even the term 'third world' is evidence that there was the US, the USSR, and everywhere else. The philosophy of capitalism has a long tradition in the US and is ingrained in our culture and the society. It rules our values and our norms of behavior. When developing nations in Asia came under the influence of China or the USSR the potential for the spread of communism was portrayed as a threat to America. These were not individuals that were going to war, it was the state. There was little, if any, international involvement or concern. While it is true there was an allied coalition in both conflicts, the war was initiated and controlled by the US. It was a battle of communism against capitalism. The War on Terrorism had the potential to rise to the level of an international conflict, but the US alienated the major stakeholders by it unilateral decisions. International cooperation was sought through the UN only on a cursory and technical basis. The US government did not align itself with the international community and did not seek their approval for its strategies. Once again, these actions were taken at the state level to defend the country against a real or perceived threat. The intelligence evaluations and subsequent recommendations came from a variety of state agencies, government professionals, and politicians. The state constructed terrorism, its motivations, and the level of menace while undertaking the war on a state basis. Though the administration may have propelled certain security concerns, they had been on the table for years. The tragedy of the Twin Towers merely hastened the focus on the war. It was undertaken without any regard for world opinion. The War in Iraq, though misguided and miscalculated, was another state sponsored endeavor. Though Bush and a few other officials can be directly faulted for usurping the power of the Congress, it was done with the acknowledgement of the elected bodies. It was therefore done through the voice of the people through their elected representatives. Without regards to the value or integrity of the intelligence on the weapons of mass destruction, it was gathered over a period of years, different administrations, and various political parties. Bush was a catalyst for an action that had been pushed by the state and approved by the people's representatives. In conclusion, modern warfare involving the US has been the result of state policies and state philosophy. Individuals can spearhead a drive to war, but it is the state that must pursue it and approve it. The Cold War lasted 40 years and was the state response to the spread of communism and the threat of nuclear proliferation. The interim wars in Korea and Vietnam were simply the violent outcroppings of the Cold War. More recent wars in Iraq and against terrorism have gained little international cooperation. The UN and the international community generally disapproves of the US actions and often feels that the state has over stepped it boundaries. Our form of government is a slow and deliberate process. This diminishes the power of any individual, including the president, to wage war without the support of the state and the people. [Name] [Instructor] [Course] [Date] Fault Lines of Culture: Battle Lines of the Future The roots of conflict that has initiated wars in the past may no longer be relevant in today's global world. The historical causes of war such as economics, occupation, border disputes, and political ideology may not be as important as a war between cultures. Civilizations that have well defined value systems and accepted norms may be the target of today's hostilities. These civilizations and cultural entities are not geographically bound, but have religion and belief as there common denominator. As the geographic and economic borders begin to blur, culture becomes more in focus. The loyalty to a religion and a way of life will be far more entrenched than the patriotism and greed that fueled past wars. The future will see major conflicts that absorb the major cultural divisions of the world. The War in Iraq is an example of a cultural war being waged against civilizations. Though it was sold to the US public as a war to eliminate the material threat of weapons of mass destruction, it has become the property of the Christian ultra-right and the Islamic extremists. The hostility is further exacerbated by media portrayals of rampant anti-Americanism around the globe. Government propaganda on both sides keeps the public in fear of another culture with different values and different norms. With the notion of weapons of mass destruction having been dispelled, it did not end the aggression. It became a war of cultures. Past wars such as World War II were fought to end aggression and oppression. They were fought largely without the influence of the culture of the participants. The US policy in the Cold War did not assess or account for the values of the Russian people. It was a response to a political and military situation and was gauged from that aspect. Today's and tomorrow's wars evaluate the culture of the enemy and defines the enemy by its civilization. Global economics has reconstructed the political landscape of the world. Trade agreements have made a war of conquest less likely. In World War II, the aggressors were actively seeking to expand their empire by overtaking neighboring lands. Today's wars wish to silence the social and cultural opposition. Free trade blocs form a new common entity that garners some loyalty and allegiance among its members. The EU, NAFTA, and the Asian trade agreements have formed a basis for economic cooperation around the world. However, among these groups are cultural and ethnic differences that affect a state's policies. These differences are evident in the way they view immigration, gender issues, and human rights. When the Cold War ended and the communist threat abated, other issues came to the attention of the political institutions and the government. Without the common enemy of communism, ethnicity and religion became the new focus of hostility. Though the West has a superior military apparatus, it can do little to sway the collective culture in the modern world. There are even disagreements among the trade blocs, which are the new allied force in the global economy. Border disputes and civil wars around the world are also built upon cultural warfare. In Darfur, the egregious killing is between tribes with a history of cultural differences. It is not about expanding borders, economic gain, or political power. The dispute among the Kurds and the Turks in northern Iraq is also the result of clan and tribal differences. Though they are using the concept of occupied territory as the rallying cry, the issue would be insignificant if not for the cultural differences. In the current War in Iraq, the important consideration is not the oil or the land. It is the perceived reward or punishment that is exacted on the Christian or Islamic world. Though this war has been in existence for centuries, the differences are more pronounced in today's technological world of communication and globalization. In conclusion, free trade and globalization have rendered the roots of past wars irrelevant. The days of an aggressor seeking to enlarge their kingdom by the conquest of their neighbors is a concept of history. Tomorrow's wars will be fought on the front of cultural and religious differences. While the Cold War was a battle of political ideologies, the Iraq War is a contest of religion. There is little economic gain for either side and only the natives will have any lasting claim to the land. The major religions of the world and their accompanying cultures can invoke a loyal fervor for war against the infidels. While globalization has broken down geographic borders, it can do little to assimilate the cultural differences of the world. Read More